get_exampleGet a runnable example. Pass a name, or omit to list examples. Names: hooks-install, inspect-session, minimal, agentic, rag, safety, persistence, evidence-output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation ('Get') with no side effects, but does not explicitly disclose safety, authentication needs, or other behavioral traits. For a simple read-only tool, this is minimally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage guidelines and enumerates valid options. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema and a single parameter, the description covers usage and parameter semantics adequately. Missing explicit mention of return format, but it is implied by 'runnable example'. Overall sufficient for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains the parameter is optional, its effect when omitted, and lists valid values. This compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a runnable example' with the verb 'get' and resource 'runnable example', effectively distinguishing it from siblings like 'define', 'explain', and 'faq'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description instructs to 'Pass a name, or omit to list examples' and lists valid names, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but 'explain' and 'faq' both cover learning about CHP, and 'search' may overlap with glossary and FAQ lookups. Descriptions provide enough clarity to distinguish them.
Naming mixes verb-initial patterns (define, explain, get_capability) with noun-like names (faq) and a phrase (how_to_adopt). While all use lowercase and underscores, the verb usage is inconsistent.
9 tools is well-scoped for a protocol documentation server. Each tool serves a clear purpose without being overwhelming or sparse.
Covers key aspects: definitions, explanations, FAQs, capabilities, examples, adoption, adapters, and search. Minor gaps like a conformance checker exist but are not essential for the educational purpose.